Elections Is Tulsi Gabbard a Russian asset?

[unimackpass]

So far I’ve from these last few pages I’ve leaned that if you the complete opposite opinion as @Jack V Savage @kpt018 @Fawlty et al then you are doing alright and have a strong relationship with reality

The hypocrisy knows no bounds with the troop....incredible stuff

The delusion is strong, never ceases to amaze me.
The irony is they believe in their own intellectual superiority and are quite openly smug about it. It's quite entertaining actually.

 

[LuchaBear]

 

[LuchaBear]

Sounds like Hillary is still disgruntled about losing. What is she trying to accomplish at this point with comments like that? Why create a controversy with in the Democratic Party months away from needing to come together to take down Trump? That doesn't sounds like the mentality of someone who should be the president.

I feel like she wants Trump to win out of spite.

 

[AlexDB9]

The delusion is strong, never ceases to amaze me.
The irony is they believe in their own intellectual superiority and are quite openly smug about it. It's quite entertaining actually.

Excatly. They circle jerk to each other and believe their so called “intellectualism”. These guys run their posts through grammarly and thesaurus the shit out of them guaranteed

basically this:

 

[AlexDB9]

Sounds like Hillary is still disgruntled about losing. What is she trying to accomplish at this point with comments like that? Why create a controversy with in the Democratic Party months away from needing to come together to take down Trump? That doesn't sounds like the mentality of someone who should be the president.

I feel like she wants Trump to win out of spite.

Ahh hildog still thinks she won. She said and I quote “I’ll beat him again”

 

[ObamaPhoneLady]

I know what McCarthyism is. The comparison is batshit crazy, though.



She had this unhinged series of tweets, accusing Clinton of being corrupt, a warmonger, and of leading a nefarious conspiracy against her. And, no, all the other candidates didn't defend Gabbard. Just Williamson, O'Rourke, Yang, and Bernie. Bernie I can sort of give a pass to because there appears to be something personal there, and the others were not being considered by any reasonable people anyway. That illustrates the point, too. The divide is between CTers and normal people, mostly, rather than left and right. On this latest flap, I think there's a basic decency gap, as well.

You think Tulsi is a Russian asset and the other side are conspiracy theorists?

OK, man.

 

[ObamaPhoneLady]

Has @Jack V Savage chimed in on her comments? His word salads when it come to Hillary are always fascinating.
It's hilarious that homer voted yes. What a whack job.

He called Tulsi's response 'vile'

Lmao dude has lost it.

 

[Jack V Savage]

You think Tulsi is a Russian asset and the other side are conspiracy theorists?

OK, man.

No, but you're making stuff up again. I think that RT has boosted Gabbard and that Twitter bots have supported her because those are true claims. And I think that Gabbard's crazy tweets claiming that Clinton is behind some kind of plot by the media to smear her suggest that she believes a crazy conspiracy because they clearly do. See, if you don't lie about what I say, it makes perfect sense.

 

[ObamaPhoneLady]

No, but you're making stuff up again. I think that RT has boosted Gabbard and that Twitter bots have supported her because those are true claims. And I think that Gabbard's crazy tweets claiming that Clinton is behind some kind of plot by the media to smear her suggest that she believes a crazy conspiracy because they clearly do. See, if you don't lie about what I say, it makes perfect sense.

Russian Twitter bots lol.

Ok, man. Ok...

 

[Jack V Savage]

Russian Twitter bots lol.

Ok, man. Ok...

Er, are you saying that they don't exist?

It's quite telling that Gabbard defenders can't make a point without lying or denying uncontroversial facts.

 

[Deleted member 539235]

current feeling in the WR lounge

 

[juggo]

She had this unhinged series of tweets, accusing Clinton of being corrupt, a warmonger, and of leading a nefarious conspiracy against her.

The only point that is at all controversial is Tulsi's claim that Hillary had been attacking her through proxies and the media ever since she launched her campaign. While possible, I'm not aware of any evidence of that. But in terms of Hillary's corruption and past history of supporting and pushing the US toward military action (she's as much of a war hawk as the neo-cons), there's little doubt those "accusations" are accurate.

 

[Jack V Savage]

The only point that is at all controversial is Tulsi's claim that Hillary had been attacking her through proxies and the media ever since she launched her campaign. While possible, I'm not aware of any evidence of that.

It's not possible, and it's not merely controversial; it's totally batshit crazy.

But in terms of Hillary's corruption and past history of supporting and pushing the US toward military action (she's as much of a war hawk as the neo-cons), there's little doubt those "accusations" are accurate.

Again, that's fever swamp stuff that you expect to see from online lunatics, but not responsible claims to be made by a Congresswoman. Republicans have been searching in vain for evidence of corruption for Clinton for decades, and to message-board crazies, their failure to find any is just evidence that she's so corrupt that she hasn't left a trail. And your parenthetical comment is ridiculous, too.

 

[juggo]

It's not possible, and it's not merely controversial; it's totally batshit crazy.

Almost as crazy as suggesting Jill Stein and Tulsi Gabbard are Russian assets. But no, not quite that crazy. Hillary is incredibly well connected in the beltway and if she wanted to smear a candidate with negative press, it's certainly possible she could assert her influence behind the scenes.

Again, that's fever swamp stuff that you expect to see from online lunatics, but not responsible claims to be made by a Congresswoman. Republicans have been searching in vain for evidence of corruption for Clinton for decades, and to message-board crazies, their failure to find any is just evidence that she's so corrupt that she hasn't left a trail. And your parenthetical comment is ridiculous, too.

The Clinton Foundation was arguably a pay-for-play enterprise. The foundation's revenue dropped like a rock following her 2016 loss:
https://www.investors.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/wEDITclinton112618-640x360.jpg

Why would that be? It also accepted several millions of dollars from foreign governments, even Bernie took issue with that.

We could also make note of the email scandal, both the decision and reasoning any acting Secretary of State would need to build a private email server offsite, as to not be connected to government servers and her collusion with the DOJ while it was being investigated to influence Comey and those in charge of the investigation.

I honestly didn't think there was anyone left who thought Hillary Clinton was free of corruption. In terms of modern American politics, she embodies it.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Almost as crazy as suggesting Jill Stein and Tulsi Gabbard are Russian assets. But no, not quite that crazy. Hillary is incredibly well connected in the beltway and if she wanted to smear a candidate with negative press, it's certainly possible she could assert her influence behind the scenes.

It's really not possible. And you can argue that Stein and Gabbard are useful idiots, but Stein is at least unwittingly helping them.

The Clinton Foundation was arguably a pay-for-play enterprise. The foundation's revenue dropped like a rock following her 2016 loss:
https://www.investors.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/wEDITclinton112618-640x360.jpg

https://www.investors.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/wEDITclinton112618-640x360.jpg

It wasn't arguably a pay-for-play evidence. But you're not really getting my point. You're an anonymous message-board poster. You can engage in wild speculation and accuse people of corruption with no evidence at all. A member of Congress should not be doing stuff like that.

Why would that be? It also accepted several millions of dollars from foreign governments, even Bernie took issue with that.

It's a charity. No evidence at all that they did anything improper. No reason to even suspect that. What we see here is that you're using your belief that Clinton is corrupt as evidence for her corruption. Stuff like that allows people to build a castle out of air.

We could also make note of the email scandal, both the decision and reasoning any acting Secretary of State would need to build a private email server offsite, as to not be connected to government servers and her collusion with the DOJ while it was being investigated to influence Comey and those in charge of the investigation.

The idea that not being careful enough with email security constitutes "corruption" is facially absurd, and she didn't collude with the DOJ to influence Comey. You're revealing yourself as a nutter by suggesting that (that's not even an allegation that anyone serious has made, and obviously there is no evidence for it).

I honestly didn't think there was anyone left who thought Hillary Clinton was free of corruption. In terms of modern American politics, she embodies it.

The first sentence here shows that you're in a bubble and likely don't consume any news that isn't openly and deliberately slanted. I'd think that if you wanted to find the "embodiment" of corruption (assuming you cared about accuracy), you could start with any number of people who have actually done corrupt things and for which evidence exists. Trump, Blagojevich, etc. Even Gabbard's trip to Syria was more corrupt than anything Clinton is known to have done.

 

[juggo]

lol @ "careful with email security" ... and I'm the nutter? Holy shit...

We'll have to agree to disagree on this, Jack. But I think you're solidly in the minority if you don't think Hillary is/was corrupt. I would venture to say that a good percentage of those who voted for her in 2016 wouldn't deny there are valid concerns on that front.

 

[Jack V Savage]

lol @ "careful with email security" ... and I'm the nutter? Holy shit...

That's the allegation, and that's what Trump's SD investigation found.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this, Jack. But I think you're solidly in the minority if you don't think Hillary is/was corrupt. I would venture to say that a good percentage of those who voted for her in 2016 wouldn't deny there are valid concerns on that front.

Latest poll I could find shows that 39% of Americans thought she was corrupt. And that was with incessant coverage that suggested it (without any concrete facts suggesting it).

 

[ObamaPhoneLady]

lol @ "careful with email security" ... and I'm the nutter? Holy shit...

We'll have to agree to disagree on this, Jack. But I think you're solidly in the minority if you don't think Hillary is/was corrupt. I would venture to say that a good percentage of those who voted for her in 2016 wouldn't deny there are valid concerns on that front.

I'd say the poll at the top of the thread indicates just how far jackie boy has spiralled since 2016.

 

[The ScorpioN]

lol @ "careful with email security" ... and I'm the nutter? Holy shit...

We'll have to agree to disagree on this, Jack. But I think you're solidly in the minority if you don't think Hillary is/was corrupt. I would venture to say that a good percentage of those who voted for her in 2016 wouldn't deny there are valid concerns on that front.

First time in the WR buddeh?

 

[juggo]

First time in the WR buddeh?

First time in 5 years.

I used to shoot the shit with Jack way back in the day, but mostly on MMA.

Does he have a WR reputation I'm not privy to?